Analysis On Evidence System Of Chinese Anti-monopoly Civil Action

This paper, based on a typical case occurred in the Chinese anti-monopoly civil action,briefly analyzed the problems of asymmetric information between the parties, inequityof the ability to participate in the proceedings and unfair distribution of the burden proof,which exist in the Chinese anti-monopoly civil action. Then the author uses theseproblems as an entry point leading to the core content of this paper-evidence system ofChinese anti-monopoly civil action.The particularity of the anti-monopoly laws and anti-monopoly civil action is thestarting point and basis for analyzing evidence system of anti-monopoly civil action. Inthe section of particularity of the anti-monopoly laws, the author carefully set forth thepublic welfare of the anti-monopoly laws, closely connection between theanti-monopoly laws and economics, uncertainty of the anti-monopoly laws, informationasymmetry, and complexity of the implementation system. In the section of particularityof the anti-monopoly civil action, the author elaborated the uncertainty of judge,inequity of the ability to participate in the proceedings, follow-on actions andstand-alone actions.In the chapter of type of the anti-monopoly civil cases, the author specificallyintroduced the monopoly agreements cases, abuse of market dominance cases,concentration of undertaking cases and their characteristics. After understanding of thespecificity of anti-monopoly law and anti-monopoly civil action, as well as the type ofanti-monopoly civil action cases, the author examines the evidence system of European,the United States and Japanese antitrust civil action. In this chapter, the author focuseson the burden proof system, the use of circumstance evidence, discovery system and theexpert witness system in the United States, the European Union’s exploration indiscovery, and the binding of competition law enforcement agencies’ decision, as wellas the JFTC’s special role in the civil action in Japan. Finally the author compared andsummarized these characteristics of the nations’ system, in order to learn.After setting forth the particularity in anti-monopoly laws and anti-monopoly civilaction, as well as the introducing the evidence system of anti-monopoly civil action in the European Union, the United States and Japan, the author interpreted "the provisionsof several issues on applying law in hearing monopoly civil disputes (promulgated bythe Supreme People’s Court)(the Draft), analyzed the characteristics of the draft andfound the existing inadequacies. The author believes that there are a lot of defects on thetype cases, the evidence discovery issue, and the recognition of the anti-monopoly lawenforcement agencies’ decision and the solutions of the professional issues in the case.Finally, combining the actual situation of China’s anti-monopoly civil action, evidencesystem of Europe Union, the United States and other countries, the author advocates tobuild evidence system of Chinese anti-monopoly civil action: clear the purpose ofevidence system of Chinese anti-monopoly civil action, establish discovery systemcontrolled by the court, confirm the binding of anti-monopoly law enforcementagencies’ decision, try to establish the expert witness system. For the monopolyagreement disputes, abuse of market dominance disputes and concentration ofundertaking disputes, we should set specific rules on the allocation of the burden ofproof.